Site Navigation

Site Mobile Navigation

Egypt’s Agonies

President Hosni Mubarak of Egypt could have done many things after he announced he would not run for office again. He could have resigned and let his vice president lead an interim government, as the Obama administration reportedly is urging him to do. He could have opened serious negotiations with antigovernment protesters leading to free and fair elections.

Instead, Mr. Mubarak is making a ruthless bid to retain power. On Wednesday, mere hours after he went on national television in a futile attempt to silence demands for his ouster, men armed with clubs, rocks, knives and firebombs began a bloody assault on protesters. They were obviously encouraged, likely even orchestrated, by the Mubarak regime.

On Thursday, the brutal crackdown went even further. As fighting between protesters and the armed gangs escalated, Mr. Mubarak’s supporters attacked and detained foreign journalists, punching them and smashing their equipment. News outlets were shut down. Two New York Times reporters were among those held and eventually released. Human rights workers were also threatened and detained.

These are the familiar tactics of dictators who want to brutalize their citizens without witnesses. We fear Mr. Mubarak is planning to unleash even more violence — antigovernment protesters have called another demonstration for Friday. There is speculation that the fighting is being provoked so Egyptians will rally around the government and support a crackdown to restore order.

Mr. Mubarak’s attempt to blame the opposition and foreigners for the mayhem — he told ABC News that the government is not responsible — is patently absurd. He has ruled the country with an iron hand for nearly 30 years. Mr. Mubarak has lost the legitimacy to continue governing Egypt, but he has chosen survival over his people. He told ABC that he had to stay in office to avoid chaos. In fact, his continued presence ensures only more chaos and instability.

As the street battles raged, the government made conciliatory sounds. It promised that Mr. Mubarak’s son would not run for president and called for dialogue with the Muslim Brotherhood, the best organized opposition group. It promised to prosecute those behind the violence. The protesters, long accustomed to the government prevarications, are unlikely to be placated.

An important question is what role the army — which gets nearly $1.5 billion in annual American aid — is prepared to play. Will it reinforce Mr. Mubarak’s repression of a transition to a new order in which the aspirations of the protesters — fed up with poverty, lack of jobs and education, the excesses of the elite, official corruption and government repression — will be addressed?

Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton said on Thursday that the army has a “clear responsibility” to protect the protesters and “to hold accountable those responsible for these attacks.”

So far, it’s unclear where the army stands. As the anti-Mubarak movement grew, some soldiers displayed sympathy for the protesters and manned checkpoints at Liberation Square, or Tahrir Square, to screen for weapons. On Monday, the army announced it would not use force against those demanding Mr. Mubarak’s ouster.

But when the melee erupted on Wednesday, the military largely confined itself to guarding the Egyptian Museum and extinguishing firebombs. On Thursday, after shots were fired — the source was unclear — the army moved to separate the combatants, but the violence continued. These mixed messages threaten to damage the army’s credibility and its status as the country’s most respected institution.

The cost of the turmoil is being felt. Tourists are fleeing. The economy is paralyzed. Egypt and its people need a quick transition to an era of greater political and economic freedoms. The violence is making that transition harder.

A version of this editorial appears in print on February 4, 2011, on page A22 of the New York edition with the headline: Egypt’s Agonies. Today's Paper|Subscribe